| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 402.1 | You been robbed by inconsistent policy! | SSDEVO::RMCLEAN | | Mon Nov 25 1991 18:46 | 2 |
| Gee... You got ripped off!! They were giving them away out here. They were
on the table on the customer side.
|
| 402.2 | | SSBN1::YANKES | | Mon Nov 25 1991 20:42 | 22 |
|
Re: .0
I suspect a majority of the reason why the outstanding loans went
down is due mostly to your suggestion that they aren't doing a good job
in getting new loans "out there". Comparing the total amount in loans
outstanding and factor in that a majority (if I remember the numbers
correctly from elsewhere in this notesfile) is in car loans -- which
are typically 4 year loans -- even if DCU members weren't paying off
any loans early, there would _still_ be a large flow of principle that
needed to be relent each month.
Then, of course, add in all the bad publicity and the notion that
since interest rates on savings is generally very low (not just DCU, but
industry-wide) some people are paying off higher-interest rate loans,
and the pile of lendable cash gets even bigger. The way out of this
(and to make even more profit for DCU than T-bills do) is simple: lower
the interest rate offerings on loans to the point that DCU is not only
competitive, but is the preferred lending institution until this excess
cash is absorbed by loans.
-craig
|
| 402.3 | | GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ | Someday, DCU will be a credit union. | Tue Nov 26 1991 08:57 | 38 |
|
> When I picked up the September one they just debited by account 25
> cents. This month they printed up a money order for 25 cents and had me
> make it out to DCU. They graciously waived the 75 cent charge for a
> money order!
>
> When I stated that it must cost them more to process the 25 cent money
> order than 25 cents (obviously that's why they normally charge people
> 75 cents for them) they said the reason they were doing this is that
> they needed the money orders "for tracking purposes".
A classic case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. So our
credit union is now probably incurring costs of $1.00-1.50 a page by the
time you throw in the teller's time and the expense of the money order.
All this for a piece of paper that costs them $.05 at the most.
Something is wrong with this picture. I had hoped for more common
sense on Cockburn's part. But I guess if you want to paint a picture
of how all these requests for information are costing the credit union
big dollars, you do things like this.
> What are they going to do with this "tracking information". I intend to
>call Mary Madden to find out.
Who knows? Seems like they would have better things to spend their
time on. Again, I wouldn't be surprised to see all this "tracking"
information tossed back in our faces as money being wasted because of a
small group of "dissidents". Seems like they "tracked" who attended
the informal discussions with the BoD too. And then we got a pretty
thorough analysis of those numbers.
>Apparently there is some
>interest bearing fund run by an almagum of credit untions. It pays more
>than Federal funds. I just hope it is as safe as federal funds. Does
>anybody know for sure?
OK, but where does the interest come from? What does this fund
"invest" in if it isn't government securities?
|
| 402.4 | | STAR::BANKS | A full service pain in the backside | Tue Nov 26 1991 09:32 | 14 |
| Well, loans went down by 2.3 million, deposits went down by 6.5 million. That
might mean that now, a greater percentage of DCU's deposits are loaned out
(rather than invested)? Maybe not much more, but...
From what I understood from Chuck's talk at ZKO, one can increase the Capital
Assets ratio by either increasing income from loans (holding deposits constant),
or decreasing deposits (holding loan income constant). In this case, neither
happened, but given that decline in deposits are almost three times greater
than the decline in loans, perhaps the second goal was achieved?
I asked Chuck whether they were intending to help the CAR by decreasing
deposits. My question was taken as a joke, but it still seems like a strategy,
and recent events certainly make it seem like that's just what they're doing,
whether or not they intended to.
|
| 402.5 | "amalgam of credit unions"?; who's in charge? | MLTVAX::SCONCE | Bill Sconce | Tue Nov 26 1991 13:40 | 16 |
| .0> By the way for those that care. Chuck has now moved the $115M out of
.0> Federal Funds into something called "CORPORATE CREDIT UNION". He
.0> mentioned this at one of his site meetings. Apparently there is some
.0> interest bearing fund run by an almagum of credit untions. It pays more
.0> than Federal funds. I just hope it is as safe as federal funds. Does
.0> anybody know for sure?
It seems like a good topic to inquire more deeply about. I'm familiar with
only one other example of interest-bearing funds run by an amalgam of credit
unions, paying more than Federal funds: participation loans.
NOT incidentally: you say "Chuck has moved...". Not just Chuck at his own
whim, I hope. (Even the BoD must have learned the lesson there.) Shouldn't
an accurate reporting of DCU's taking new investment directions include
mention of who authorized them? Presumably the BoD...
|